First in possession

Valerie claimed that Carmie and her farm laborers intruded into her land with the help of three policemen and other barangay officials. They destroyed the plants; harvested the root crops, corn, and banana; built a hut; fenced off the area; and posted a “No Trespassing” sign—preventing her and her family from entering the premises where they have always resided and had deprived them of their harvest.

According to Valerie, Carmie can never assert ownership over the property because it is a government land. She claimed that Carmie’s parents sold a portion of their plantation to her husband Danny for a fee as declared in a “Kasabutan.”

Valerie based her and her family’s right of possession on a Certificate of Stewardship issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the name of her now deceased husband. Valerie also averred that her family had prior possession of the land as her husband started tilling the same even before the war.

When she married him in the 1940s, they continued to occupy and cultivate the land together with their five children. To further support her claim of prior possession and Carmie’s alleged intrusion, she submitted, among others, Carmie’s letters that sought police and barangay assistance in fencing the subject property; Carmie’s counsel’s demand letter for Valerie’s son to leave the property; pictures of a collapsed house on the subject land that Valerie claims to belong to one of her sons; and an affidavit of a Bureau of Forestry employee and a co-barangay resident, who attested that Valerie’s family had been tilling the land since 1951.

On the other hand, Carmie interposed that the alleged “Kasabutan” was never brought to her attention by her parents. In any case, she asserted that such allegation of Valerie even supports her claim of prior possession.

Carmie tacked her possessory right to that of her parents who, in 1948, purchased from the prior owners, who sold a 4.51-hectare land. According to her, the said land includes the disputed area which her parents also cultivated and developed. Carmie even submitted her tax declarations over the land.

Carmie further questioned Valerie’s legal personality to sue, contending that “Danny T. Villo,” the named tiller in the Certificate of Stewardship No. 146099, is the real party-in-interest and thus should be the plaintiff in the suit and not Valerie. They claimed that “Danny T. Villo” is actually Valerie’s son Romy, a construction worker who had never even cultivated the subject land.

Q: Can public land be subject of a forcible entry case?

A: Yes, even public lands can be the subject of forcible entry cases as it has already been held that ejectment proceedings may involve all kinds of land. Thus, in the case at bar, while the parties are fighting over the possession of a government land, the courts below are not deprived of jurisdiction to render judgment. Courts must resolve the issue of possession even if the parties to the ejectment suit are mere informal settlers.

Q: What should be proven in order for a forcible entry case to prosper?

A: For a court to restore possession, two things must be proven in a forcible entry case: prior physical possession of the property and deprivation of the property by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.

“Possession de facto, [i.e., the physical possession of a property,] and not possession de jure is the only issue in a forcible entry case. This rule holds true regardless of the character of a party’s possession, provided that he has in his favor priority in time.” As used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, “possession” refers to “physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.”

Q: Is Valerie the appropriate party to file a forcible entry case against Carmie?

A: Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court specifies who may be the plaintiff in an action for forcible entry, viz: Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. A person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, may, at any time within one year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.

Sans the presence of the awardee of the Certificate of Stewardship, the provision clearly allows Valerie to institute the action for the recovery of the physical possession of the property against the alleged usurper. She has a right or interest to protect as she was the one dispossessed and thus, she can file the action for forcible entry. Any judgment rendered by the courts below in the forcible entry action will bind and definitely affect her claim to possess the subject property.

The fact that Valerie is not the holder of the Certificate of Stewardship is not in issue in a forcible entry case. This matter already delves into the character of her possession. We emphasize that in ejectment suits, it does not even matter if the party’s title to the property is questionable.

Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession. (Source: Villondo vs. Quijano, G.R. No. 173606, December 3, 2012)

Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is Dean, College of Law at the Lyceum of the Philippines University; and Trustee at Large, Philippine Association of Law Schools